Wiki Home

Microsoft Band Wagon

Namespace: VB
Interesting that this topic has been here for years, yet there isn't one for Google Band Wagon. I think it's indicative of how many people see Microsoft as evil, seemingly willy-nilly killing off products, yet Google can do no harm.

The topic being here for years is the point of a Wiki.
Google killing products has as much relevance as Procter & Gamble killing products. None. Visual FoxPro is owned by Microsoft, not Google.
This page is similar to VFP Version Property Concordance. It's just a list. Bill Anderson

So, how is this list revlevant to VFP? Really, the death of Microsoft Bob, At Work, VisualJ++, MSN Music and almost everything on this list have nothing to do with VFP.

If it's supposed to be relevant to VFP, then I it should contain only products that are relevant to VFP. What you're saying is the same as "I own a Chevy and now GM killed Saturn". They have no relation to each other. What does Bob, Ultimate TV, OneCare, Money, or others have to do with VFP? The first line that describes this pages says "The place where once highly touted technology goes to die." Google has had lots of "highly touted technology". VFP Version Property Concordance is relevant to VFP. But, I see someone has added a Google Band Wagon page. Kudos to that person.

The Microsoft bandwagon graveyard
The place once highly touted software technology goes to die.

Sung to the tune of "Another One Bites the Dust" (Wyclef Jean / Queen)

Sung to the tune of "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen, covered by Wyclef Jean apparently. -- Alan Bourke

Remember the busy part: "And another one's gone and another one's gone and another one bites the dust . . ." Great throughput, eh?
Anyone remember Microsoft At Work? It was an initiative to integrate photocopiers, telephone handsets, fax machines, calculators, printers, PCs and all the other electronic gadgets within an office. It was centred on the MAW operating system, that would run on the above-mentioned devices. Microsoft promised that it would allow us, for example, to initiate a photocopying job from a PC, with the software automatically hunting for the least busy copier, even if it was at another site. And when the photocopier ran out of paper, the system would pop up an alert on the desktop screen. In a similar way, it would let us control PCs from a telephone handset (or the other way round), and perform remote diagnostics on fax machines and other devices.

I attended the launch of this technology in March 1994. Representatives from many of the world's largest electronics, telecomms annd office equipment manufacturers were present (Xerox, Compaq, BT, NCR, and others). With Microsoft at the front, they all said how committed they were to this "revolutionary and far-reaching technology that would have a profound effect on all our lives."

For a couple of weeks afterwards, the technical press was full of articles about Microsof At Work. Then they stopped. Within a couple of months, the whole initiative had been quietly dropped.
Mike Lewis
Fullblown casualties
Kinect --
Windows 10 Mobile Phone --
Microsoft Passport -- see
JET - You mean aside from its underlying use all over the place in Active Directory and Exchange 2000? No, that's a different sort of Jet.
DDE - superceded by ?OLE
OLE - superceded by ActiveX - renamed, not replaced.
ActiveX - superceded by COM - renamed, not replaced.
COM - superceded by COM+ ( COMPlus ) and DCOM - COM+/DCOM are extensions rather than replacements. COM+ is a solution for a different problem domain than COM, though it is implemented as an extension and hosting environment for COM objects...
COM+ - superceded by .Net. Actually, no. Until .Net 3.0 was released with Windows Vista, COM+ still had a place in the .NET world.. COM+ has been replaced by WindowsCommunicationFoundation.
Visual JPlus Plus
Visual FoxPro - While not dead yet it is starting to have compatibility issue with newer Microsoft Technologies and without further changes to the core and zero marketing efforts by Microsoft it rightfully belongs on this list. Developer's are far to lax with Microsoft's business practicies. There are too many "cheerleaders" and not enough realist in the Microsoft Development Arena.
Visual Basic
Remote Data Objects - (Rd O)
Web data access via IDC
Client Server - As an overall application architecture, bad. As a critical piece of the data tier, good.
Does Client Server really belong here? It's not a Microsoft specfic thing and definately not a product.
Windows for Tablets - Windows XP, Tablet Edition? Seems more like this finally arrived than lives in the graveyard...
Visual Interdev
Word Basic
WordHelp (.hlp)
Active Documents (these were dead on arrival)
VB replaced by Visual Fred
VBA replaced by VSA
Windows DNA replaced by Microsoft Web solution platform
Microsoft Bob
Project Green
Ultimate TV
Microsoft Max
"Smart" Watches
MSN Music
Live Search Books, Live Search Academic
Windows Live Expo
Microsoft Equipt
Microsoft Live One Care
Microsoft Kin

KIN was stillborn - 500 sold in the US? Stupid idea. -- Alan Bourke

Silverlight. Not dead but some concerns in the community after an interview with Bob Muglia:

SQL Server DTS (Data Transformation Services) superseded by SSID in SQL 2005
SQL Server DMO superseded by SMO
Visual Source Safe
Vine --
Courier Tablet --
XBox Live Service --
Response Point --
Windows Live Spaces --, R.I.P., 16 March 2011:
Live Labs --
Massive --
Zune --
Desktop Gadgets --
3D Movie Maker --
Active Channel --
Active Desktop --
Backoffice Server --
Bookshelf --
Chromeeffects --
Commerce Server --
Danger --
Ensemble Studios --
Essential Business Server --,2817,2360999,00.asp
Expression --
Flight Simulator --
ForeFront Protection Manager --
Hover! --!
Hohm --
Info Path --
InfoCard --
Iron Python, IronRuby --
Massive --
Messenger --
Microsoft Java Virtual Machine --
Milo & Kate --
Microsoft Plus! --!
MSN Direct --
MSN Web Messenger --
Musiwave --
Office Accounting --
Oslo --
PerformancePoint Server --
Pivot --
Popfly --
Reader --
Quadrant --
QnA --
Recite --
Sidekick --
Slate --
System Center Capacity Planner --
Tafiti --
Talisman --
Ultimate Extras --
Urban Assault --
Venus --
Vizact --
Windows CardSpace --
Windows Live Gallery --
Windows SteadyState --
WinG --
Xenix --
MicrosoftRepository (Though Visio2000 (see Visio Enterprise) uses the repository to store the class definitions for its UML diagrams). I think we can agree that the MicrosoftRepository underachieves in a very big way.-- Steven Black
Tablet PC I'm looking at a Tablet PC right now. Tablet technology is in every version of Windows Vista. What's MIA about it? -- Peter Crabtree
Collateral damage
Anything built with Jet -- Like ActiveDirectory?
Anything built with Rd O
All investments in Visual JPlus Plus.
Microsoft Live
Let us not forget the developers who invested (wasted) time and other resources in any of these products.
It seems that the popular thing to do is to run down MS at every opportunity, especially if you are an IT person. It's quite an unusual phenomenon. As for me, I disagree. I like MS. My Windows XP is solid and VFP is a delight to use. I choose not to bad mouth MS because of its success. I would love to have half the business ability of that remarkable company.

If MS never marketed new ideas and products you'd still be programming in basic on a DOS machine. All you have succeeded in doing is listing attempts to market new software. That is just good old fashioned commerce.

Grady McCue

Response: You are oblivious. You say exactly what they like you to say. Get a life.

[2005.04.10] Response to Response: Personal remarks and 'put downs' are your proofs? I agree with JonathanChoy below, and would only add that Microsoft is comprised of folks just like most everyone else - fallable; with the exception of those few who feel they are superior enough to others that they treat them with scorn. Microsoft is a business, just as any other. They may or may not make decisions you or I would agree with but until you or I achieve the same results in the same business arena I dare say that our protestations sound rather small. Oh, care to identify yourself? - Doug Dodge

Response to Grady McCue
It's not that unusual for people to criticise a dominant company. Any time one company so dominates an industry, as MS does, it attracts a lot of criticism and scorn, if only because it is virtually the only game in town. But in Microsoft's case, I think they are brilliant business people and marketers and, like IBM before them, know how to sell. Also like IBM, they market inferior products, for the most part, because they can. Like Ma Bell in the 1960's, every monopoly (or virtual monopoly) tends to market what it has: they have the clout to change the market, so they don't have to strive for excellence.

But, to give them their due, they did come with us into the 16/32/64 bit world, making PC's and PC based servers almost as powerful as the mainframes of a decade ago. They gave the GUI a wide userbase, but only because of the open architecture of the original IBM PC, while Apple, Tandy/Radio Shack and others were doing proprietary stuff.

On the con side, however, they don't innovate. They imitate and buy. VFP is a great tool, but it's inherent strengths were developed by the Fox software folks, even after they got to MS. They bought SQL Server, Word, Visio, Source Safe, and on and on. What they couldn't buy, they imitated, sometimes doing a better job (Excel) and sometimes doing a lot worse (Access). That's the way it goes. No company is perfect, and no company is inherently evil. But, human nature being what it is, monopolistic power (whether real or percieved) will always be abused. And, I think, that is the bottom line on MS. Keeping up cash flow is their imperative, and that's why they change the models every three years. It's also why Detroit (metaphorically speaing) changes models every year.

Bob Ohrstedt

1) If I recall correctly, both Excel and Access were purchased from other companies. And, since the purchase they have evolved very little. If you compare the '95 versions of both to the current version, there hasn't been much new in 10 years.
2) Intel and AMD are the ones that have made "PC's and PC based servers almost as powerful as the mainframes of a decade ago." Microsoft continues to squander cpu cycles at an alarming rate.
3) The comparison to IBM is inconsistent with my experience. IBM is quite poor at marketing. Look at the AS/400. Everyone today thinks it's a dinosaur. But, I've had the opportunity to work with it and I can tell you that it is MILES beyond what is being done in the PC world. I won't go into details here, unless someone insists, but suffice it to say that IBM is a very innovative company that has a very poor marketing team. The PC itself is testament to this.
4) I think that the reference to Human Nature regarding monopolistic power is unfortunate. The fact is that the structure of the corporation in today's world engenders monopolistic behavior. Here you have a living entity, with a legal right to own property, engage in contracts, etc. And it lives FOREVER. And it has no inherent morality regarding human values or national priorities. And its prime directive is growth and domination. To me, these constitute inherent evils.
5) If Microsoft never marketed new products, other, more entrepreneurial companies would. And we would be programming is some advanced language on some advanced operating system. Perhaps C++ on Linux, for example.
Ray Kirk

While you might argue that fox improvements have not been revolutionary since MS purchased them (in 1992!), there have been some pretty remarkable evolutionary changes: OOP, SQL syntax, and with VFP9 report engine enhancements - I'd say MS deserves a lot of credit for continuing to improve on a good thing. Would this have happened if MS had not bought Fox? One could definitely argue either way. -- Randy Jean

Well "Data Base(d?) Advisor" used to publish a watch list of developments promised/ongoing at Fox Software and it included a client-server version as well as other platforms. These seem to have died when MS bought Fox Software.
Fox Software maintained a public list of all known bugs. That died when MS bought Fox Software. -- Jim Nelson

It seems more like people are confusing the marketing focus and the development tools. Even the current implementations of the .NET Framework depend completely on the underlying COM services in the operating system, and COM is OLE2 with its 'true' name.

How does .NET 'rely' on COM ? -- Alan Bourke


Bob Ohrstedt said:

If I recall correctly, both Excel and Access were purchased from other companies. And, since the purchase they have evolved very little.

Are you sure about that?

I'm pretty sure that Access (codenamed Cirrus) was an in-house effort by Microsoft. And FoxPro was bought by MS only months either before or after they released Access.

That fits with my memory. And, I believe one of the reasons for the purchase of FoxPro was to get the expertise of the FoxPro developers in getting Access out the door.

Yes, Access was developed in-house by Microsoft and at that time it was happening because they sorely needed a database product of their own, period. I know when I saw Access (1.0) and FoxPro for Windows 2.5 side by side, I was worried that FPW would be hurt because Access was prettier and more Windows-like. And that's exactly what many others thought when they headed into the vortex of sin and degradation that was the seduction of Access.

I'm not certain as to what the lineage of Excel is. Anybody?


[2006.08.23 11:24:38 PM EST] Microsoft started first by purchasing Multiplan and then they created Excel from what they learned from Multiplan. Here's a link and here's one for Excel -- Doug Dodge

[2007.04.08 03:01:38 PM EST] The MultiPlan link states that, "Multiplan was an early spreadsheet program, (...) developed by Microsoft." The Excel articles cites MultiPlan (on CP/M) as being "originally marketed" by Microsoft in '82. Nary a word about Multiplan originating from anyone but Microsoft. - RushStrong

Here's a link providing some MS Product history and screen shots. Microsoft Access 1.0 clearly had MS on the box. Not definitive proof perhaps, but close. Here's a link with good info on Excel's History. -- Craig SBoyd

Reading this you'd think no other platform ever featured abandoned technologies, or technologies that evolved into something else. What about Python 3 versus Python 2? Or HyperCard on the Mac ?
Python 2.6 was released to warn developers of upcoming Python 3 incompatibilities. This makes it easy to write code that works on both versions- just as we routinely write code to work on multiple browsers and even versions of browsers. That's completely different from dumping a product.
Category Development Tools
( Topic last updated: 2017.10.27 06:40:05 AM )